Stem Cells: Bush vetoes

The stem cell debate sure is interesting, isn't it. It's even divided the Republicans--who do a darn good job of sticking together most of the time, unlike my fellow democrats.

Some thoughts:

As an adoptive parent to be--I think the President's alternative to have the frozen embryos adopted is somewhat misguided. With adoption laws being rather cumbersome in the United States (and rightfully so--you can't just be giving kids out to any schmoe who comes along), the chances that these embryos can be adopted quickly is probably unlikely. Secondly, the numbers we are talking about are obscurred in the argument. There are many attractive options for people seeking adoption and many of those consist of not carrying and embryo to term (although that would be the preferable option obviously for most people). Is there any guarantee that our President offers to guarantee that he can get all of these embryos adopted?

My guess is no...and it's probably not even close. Perhaps there is a compromise and here's where a slippery slope comes in. I wonder if "embryos slated for disposal due to lack of viable adoption" could be considered for stem cell research instead? We could make every attempt to get the embryos off for adoption and if they fail to be adopted after a viable time--then can they be given for research?

While certainly far less than ideal...it at least offers a compromise and an alternative to the straight disposal of the embryos. It's certainly far from an argument that the church would accept--but perhaps those in the political sphere would listen to this compromise.

As we all know, Governing is choosing and someone always gets screwed. Unfortunately, any way you slice this one--it's always going to be the unborn who lose. With the veto, people in need of the research also get screwed. Everyone loses.

As always there are no easy answers. I'd probably prefer not to do the research on the embryos, because I don't hear from the scientific community any guarantees of success with the procedure. Naturally, I also believe that the most vulnerable need our protection as well. However, if others who don't share our views have the legal right to dispose of these lives--what are we to do?